Do you know any cops, firefighters or paramedics slowpoke? Well I know a few and I think they need a union support. How many professions do you know of if you make a judgment error in the heat of the moment it could lead to the end of your career and jail time? Your joke about "spiffy uniforms" is in tremendously poor taste but I expect nothing less from left wing clowns like you. I would probably also add prison guards to the group.
Does being a union member make you sick?
- Thread starter train
- Start date
What exactly should he be open to? That union members do get sick more than twice as much? He actually made no qualitative comment and merely posted an article and quoted loosely from it.
Are you suggesting that if stats were more accurately kept everyone would be sick for close to 1 month every year ? My goodness , are you really that stupid?
What do expect the managers to do actually ? It's in the contract. Would you like the managers to try to ignore/bypass the contract? Please enlighten us as to what they should do other than what they are trying to do right now which is have the clause removed because of abuse.
I think what OJ actually means is that its quite open minded to post any right bashing, anti-Harper thread that you want no matter how nebulous the premise but if you dare to post something negative about our beloved public sector employees, regardless of whether it is true or not you are a close-minded bastard.
The possibility that the 'conclusion' wasn't actually proven. Wouldn't be the first time a paper exaggerated. But "loosely" is indeed the word.
No. You're the one leaping to that silly conclusion. But I share your judgment of it. If you really want sick people coming to work, then don't give them sick leave was my point. And clearly that would distort your stats of who books off sick the most. The fact that some folks really are sick does have some relevance.
So you say, having read The Contract I am sure. I rather imagine there are numerous clauses in scores of contracts across the swivel service, and that none is as simple as you imagine.
Whether what you say is true—which I seriously doubt—or erroneous, it was managers who signed that contract for the employer, and who must take their share of the blame for 'giving it away'. In fact I'd bet that the contract has provisions, such as doctor's notes, that managers could enforce but do not. Even phoning the sick worker at home can often speed 'recovery' IME. Do tell what 'clause' you're referring to when you suggest removing it is all these competence-challenged managers of yours can think to do. But what is simple is to expect better from people with secure jobs, who are paid well to curb abuse and ensure productivity, and consistently demand it. That is a manager's job. It is also the job of those she reports to, all the way up to the President of the Treasury Board (who sets a stellar example).
I certainly expect them to get at that task and have it in hand before the National Post—or that notorious union mouthpiece The Star (in its TDSB series) does it for them. But since they are evidently, just as lacklustre and merely human as those they 'manage', isn't it a good thing we have a free press to call them to account?
Now if we could just get a Freedom of Information Act in play, we might accomplish the same sort of thing at levels where it would mean something.
I have no problem with it. Unlike my job, if a cop is off sick, someone still needs to be out on the streets and they have to be paid for it (at overtime rates?). Bankable sick days (and even a payout like the teachers get) is compensation for not taking off unneeded days and therefore saves the city money in the long run. Eliminate the bankable days and it is far more likely that every sick day will be used and that hurts the bottom line.
My question about the spiffy uniforms wasn't intended as a joke. I was simply looking for something that would explain your bewildering claim that only cops, paramedics and firefighters should be allowed to have unions. I was also wondering if maybe you had a thing for flashing lights and sirens. Unfortunately, you've now accepted my suggestion that someone like you really ought to include prison guards on your list of union-worthy occupations so the sirens and flashing lights are out. I'll just have to look elsewhere for a rational explanation.
I went to university with a couple of guys who later became cops and, more recently, my wife and I frequently socialized with one of her friends from work and this friend's husband who was a detective of some kind (no uniform or flashing lights). He was a really nice guy and we managed to comfortably hang out together for a few years until they moved back to Nova Scotia where he was from. Oddly enough, this detective never once commented about the spectre of jail time for occupational lapses of judgement on his part. He seemed happily married and really quite normal so I would never have suspected that he was living his life under such an ominous cloud. Who knew?
My first landlord during my university days was a fireman who was also quite pleasant until he threw me out for smuggling girls up to my flat (girls cause big problems in the morning because they hog the all-male shared washrooms). This fireman seemed to really like his job because he was well paid for mostly just waiting around and his station was only a couple of blocks away from the 3 houses he was renting out to students. We were never really friends because he was the landlord and I was a student in my early 20's but we did often chat about his occupation, his various shifts and the fire station meal arrangements etc. Stange as it must seem, he never once mentioned how he was living under the threat of going to jail for making a mistake on the job. So I never would have known about this if you hadn't pointed it out to me. Thanks so much!
I'm no big fan of unions but my list of the most union-worthy occupations would have to include quite a few others who could also get jail time or professional censure for making spur of the moment occupational mistakes. How about transport truck drivers, bus and subway drivers, construction crane & heavy equipment operators, search and rescue (airplane & helicopter) pilots, airline pilots, triage nurses and other emergency room medics, psychiatric nurses, social workers and those working closely with high-risk and troubled young people, nuclear generation scientists and engineers, miners, teachers in tough schools (I'm good friends with a principal at such a school and she's been physically beaten by a student who was off his meds - she's had to report sexual abuse of several 12 - 15 year old girls by moms' boyfriends along with numerous other cases of child abuse, gross negligence etc. Her whole professional life is one giant judgement call under the microscopic scrutiny of parents, the law, the school board / ministry of education, social services etc).
We should also have a hard look at the regulations dealing with the unions themselves, including their political activities, donations etc. That would also apply to the more mundane occuptions like parks & rec, librarians, sanitation and so on.
This is a link to a site that shows the per-capita injury stats. Check out the "Industries" chart. Cops and firemen are not the most endangered occupations.
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=20
Well duh...all the jobs I mentioned have plenty of training. And, despite the best efforts of those doing the training, some occupations are riskier than others and the per-capita rates of workplace death and injury show that quite clearly. It's one thing to believe cops & firefighters have more dangerous jobs because of anecdotal evidence on the news and from all that box-office bravado coming at us from Hollywood. But it's quite another to just ignore the statistics available from professional agencies that record and measure the rates of occupational injuries etc. This is a perfect example of the right wing's anti-science bias.
You've also stated that paramedics and prison guards should be among your chosen few but, thankfully, you haven't "explained" this. Is it because you actually think those are also among the most dangerous of occupations? Or did they make the cut because you believe paramedics and prison guards are at a greater risk of getting jail time for making bad decisions on the job? You're not making much sense here but I'd be happy to hear the rationale behind your beliefs.
And, yes, all or most of the occupations I mentioned are already unionized. But it was your claim that only cops, firefighters, paramedics and prison guards should be alllowed to have unions. Which means you don't believe that any of those other occupations meet your criteria, despite the fact that many of them are measureably more dangerous than your chosen few. The fact that these other occupations are already unionized has nothing to do with your bizarre statement that they shouldn't be. This is about you and your reasons.
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=20
